The Social Individual and the Limits of Adjudication

Two very general ideas have shaped my thinking about constitutional law. The first is that most of the rights in the Charter protect or advance different aspects of our relationship or connection with others. We are social beings. Who we are – our identity, our agency – is shaped by our interactions with others. Rights such as freedom of expression, religious freedom, and the right to equality, do not simply protect individual autonomy, but instead protect different aspects of human flourishing within community. The second theme is narrower and more legal and has to do with what we can expect from the courts in the protection of rights or the advancement of the public good. Courts are adjudicative bodies. Their role is to interpret and apply the law – existing law - to the cases that come before them. Because courts are insulated from political pressure, they are well suited to the role of adjudicator – to resolving disputes based on the law. At the same time, because they are independent in this way, courts are poorly suited to the task of general policymaking, or the redistribution of resources. In my writing I have explored both these themes, and the tension between them. In this lecture, I will discuss three Charter rights – freedom of expression, the right to equality, and religious freedom – to illustrate what I mean by the social character of rights and the tension between this understanding of rights and the structure of constitutional adjudication.